get_industry_overview
Return a plain-text overview for an industry page (slug, e.g. "retail").
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| industry | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Return a plain-text overview for an industry page (slug, e.g. "retail").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| industry | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. States it returns 'plain-text overview', implying safe read operation. But lacks details on error handling, authentication, or what happens with invalid slugs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, efficient, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with 1 param and output schema, but description does not clarify what the overview contains or how to obtain the slug. Leaves agent guessing about additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only gives an example slug for the 'industry' parameter, but does not explain valid values or format. Fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Return' and resource 'plain-text overview for an industry page' with an example slug. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_article' and 'list_industries'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'search_articles' or 'list_industries'. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: fetching a single article, fetching an industry overview, listing articles, listing industries, and searching articles. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_article, list_industries), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With exactly 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of retrieving and searching article and industry content. No tool feels extraneous or missing.
The tool set covers all likely operations for a read-only content API: listing and getting both articles and industries, plus search. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.